Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11UNCED 1992; George Hunt
Video Item Preview
Share or Embed This Item
- Topics
- UNCED, Maurice Strong, Edmond de Rothschild
- Item Size
- 417.5M
George Hunt was present at the 'Fourth World Wilderness Congress' (he explains what that means later in the video) and noticed that it had very little to do with the conventional environment movement and was surprised to see people like Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild (Pilgrims Society), David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), and James A. Baker (Pilgrims Society; Cap & Gown; trustee American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Atlantic Council of the United States; National Security Planning Group; Bohemian Grove; CFR; Carlyle; advisor George W. Bush in his 2000 election)."I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process - that would take too long and devour far too much of the funds - to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth." (David Lang, a Montreal International Banker).
- Addeddate
- 2009-03-21 13:40:47
- Identifier
- Unced1992GeorgeHunt
comment
Reviews
(1)
Reviewer:
buckwheat1294
-
favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite -
June 18, 2017 (edited)
Subject: more info
Subject: more info
I would like to first note that Catholic inspired denials of overpopulation are based on out of context claims: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101.htm
The following ... argument likewise contends that a conspiratorial account attacking global warming is untenable, and notes the reasons why one might believe this and challenges it - though it ignores that many other corporate giants have manipulated this as will be discussed: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42827.htm
I appreciate the following as well:
"Carbon Trading Giants and Big Energy Are Both Trying to Steer the Global Warming Debate Away from REAL Solutions
Posted on July 28, 2009 by WashingtonsBlog
Goldman Sachs and the other financial giants who brought us the economic meltdown and manipulation of the economy argue that carbon trading will solve all of our problems. If we just let them make out like bandits off of carbon trading, then everything will be fine. Not only is this an awfully convenient for the banksters who conned us into an economic crash, but many environmentalists don’t even buy that carbon trading is the best way to reduce carbon emissions.
On the other hand, big oil and king coal argue that keeping the status quo is best for everyone. You know, let the giant energy conglomerates produce all our energy and make out like robber barons. These energy giants buy up and then bury promising alternative energy technologies so that cheap alternatives don’t challenge their monopoly on energy-production.
But neither the carbon trading or the energy giants want us to look at real alternatives or solutions . . . like microgeneration.
Microgeneration of energy could reduce our bills, decentralize power away from the giant corporations, and help protect our freedom (and see this).
Saving money and protecting freedom are bipartisan goals that everyone can rally around, whether you believe in global warming or not.
Microgeneration would also significantly reduce carbon output by substituting wind, solar and other types of clean energy for conventional energy sources, and so it would have a significant impact on reducing CO2 while empowering people at the local level, and reducing our energy bills.
So if global warming is, in fact, a threat, a major switch to microgeneration would be a lot more effective than carbon trading.
If global warming is not a threat, microgeneration can still help to break the monopoly of big energy, and return power back to the people (and a little money back into our pockets).
We all know that the powers-that-be try to divide-and-conquer us so as to make sure we don’t organize for change, to keep us off-balance, and to ram through their agendas. They do this on every important issue.
They are going to continue to try to divide us on climate issues as well. We have to empower ourselves, and microgeneration is a good start.": http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/carbon-trading-giants-and-big-energy-are-both-trying-to-steer-the-global-warming-debate-away-from-real-solutions.html
Also, "The climate will change with or without us. To ensure the survival of what we value in terms of human society, history, and infrastructure, as well as ecosystems and individual species we desire to preserve, we must come up with something better than “carbon neutrality” implemented by giving bankers yet another derivative to trade, and energy companies a legal framework to maintain monopolies over powering human civilization.
Part of the solution is not only leveraging technology to protect our towns, cities, and countrysides from adverse weather, flooding, and changes in temperature through innovative infrastructure projects, but undermining, decentralizing, and eventually eliminating permanently these corporate monopolies that are demonstrably destroying the environment.
Strange that 350.org wasn’t marching against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and Monsanto’s pursuit of overwriting the planet genetically. Could a planet face a more dire threat than being overwritten genetically, its very essence mutilated by profiteering corporations? Strange that 350.org‘s “Friends & Allies” don’t demand an end to profiteering wars around the planet that see tons of depleted uranium, with a half-life of billions of years, being dumped in both human and natural habitats the world over. Strange that 350.org, and “Friends & Allies” like WWF have in fact partnered with Fortune 500 corporations that perpetuate global monopolies, centralized manufacturing and distribution (and profits) that encourage wasteful supply chains, unhealthy socioeconomic trends, incur large amounts of garbage, and require the very petroleum and CO2 producing processes they allegedly were in Washington to oppose.
Indeed, 350.org and partners like the WWF do not represent corporations joining environmentalists, but rather represent environmentalists being co-opted and manipulated by the very special interests committing real harm to this planet.
[...]
Waving around placards as part of a big-business rally couched behind environmentalism, demanding action from a government big-business already fully owns, simply legitimizes and manufacturers public consent for more of the same. More schemes, more waste, more fraud, more abuse, while the environment continues to unravel and a host of problems both directly and indirectly related continue to grow.
Real solutions generally don’t involve corporations or governments, in fact, as a necessity must exclude them. The marriage between corporate interests and government regulations should be something all of us can agree on, regardless of where we sit on the political or environmental spectrum.
Real solutions involve a real education in science, technology, design, and manufacturing. This empowers people in all levels of society to accurately assess problems and apply local solutions. This, coupled with modern manufacturing technology enables more to be done on a local level, short-circuiting the petroleum intensive logistical chains WWF sponsors like Walmart couldn’t live without.
Organic farming on a local level coupled with local farmers’ markets eliminates entirely the need for Monsanto poison, fertilizers, and genetically modified franken-crops, along with the replacement of the petroleum intensive logistical networks that distribute big-agri’s products. 3D printing, computer-controlled manufacturing, and local hackerspaces that encourage local entrepreneurship accelerate technological development and solutions that allow us to live the lives we wish to lead while doing so more efficiently in terms of energy, waste, and environmental impact.
In fact, when you think about it, almost all of these real solutions involve real community and local action, not placard-waving trips to Washington. These are not solutions that involve policies, taxes, and regulations, but rather technology, education, constructive, pragmatic, technical solutions that not only would make our environment more livable, but make our local economies and communities more viable and self-sufficient. The catch is, and the reason why this isn’t being done, you will notice that none of these activities require WWF sponsors like Walmart, Nike, IBM, Toyota, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, HSBC, Citi, IKEA, Nokia, etc.
We all desire cleaner air, healthier food, safer water, and greener parks. Waiting for a corporate-financier establishment to give it to us, when they themselves are the ones that have denied us of these essentials is the height of both naivety and futility.
Does it make sense then, to see why real problems and their solutions have become the target of hijackers like the corporate conglomeration that is 350.org and the WWF? Does it make sense to see them offering “alternative” centralized, corporate dependent solutions that replace local activism and tangible, technological solutions?
Why travel to Washington D.C. and demand non-solutions to real problems when you can organize locally and begin making this planet livable in very real, tangible, pragmatic, and measurable ways?":
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-change-corporate-lobby-threatens-the-environment/5323438
Issues like deforestation, GMOs, etc., and many of the issues described above, are of definite concern to me.
Yet there is a tremendous power grab based on environmentalism from extremely wealthy bankers that people need to be aware of. George Hunt's presentation, given above, shows is that many of the Global initiatives taken in the name of “sustainability” constitute a new false liberation ideology. This presentation clearly shows the World power of an “Anglo-American” (read – Rothschild dominated) financial coterie. Here, people like you and I are called “the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the Earth”. And a banking system set up by and for the Rothschilds is shown to be the centerpiece of the new mode of organization that “sustainability” measures will create. The attendees (like Maurice Strong) have no qualms about acknowledging the dominance of that family in World Affairs. Strong states that there is “no better person” to spearhead this project than Edmond de Rothschild, and that he “epitomizes in his own life that positive synthesis between environment and conservation on the one hand and economics on the other”. In other words, Rothschild is the leader of both international finance and this pseudo-environmentalist movement.
Of course, the Rothschilds are making massive amounts of money from this. They are the leaders in the carbon trading market, according to a recent press release: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/newsreleases/rothschild-australia-and-e3-international-to-take-the-lead-in-the-global-carbon-trading-market-154464275.html
But as this presentation shows, their intentions are not only to make massive amounts of money, but also to ensnare the populace within a new web of social control. We can see the outlines of this operating today. Of relevance is the document called "Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential" (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008: https://web.archive.org/web/20101104212113/http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf) - written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, London (see "about the author" section of that document).
In the document, he defined "greenhouse emissions" as the new form of "social market" and stated:
"That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match....
That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely `saving the planet' - perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.
Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.
The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue....
Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative."
He noted that "The political costs of such loss of sovereignty are lengthy. Loss of competitiveness (massively overstated in the activities in which energy is used - especially since trade will be more difficult, if, at the margin, transport is made more costly), loss of power and loss of direct control over economic levers are potentially the most significant and give the most cause for concern. But these actions are necessary if we are to answer the accusation that "it doesn't matter what we do when China is expanding its energy usage at its current rate" - we have to bring China and India in and they are not going to enter a scheme where they do not have a "say". When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this [the above] could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion."
He furthermore stated that "The EU member states have recognised their need to subordinate sovereignty to the EU; in time, if this is to work, the EU itself will need to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading."
He stated "Above all, this plan requires "sponsors" - a country prepared to host it and a senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order."
He stated that regulating this should be a "World Environment Authority" operating from a "world city with world skills and world facilities." He then notes, in a section entitled "A natural role for London", "London is a world financial centre (possibly "the" world financial centre)." and that "London would make a compelling case to house the World Environmental Agency."
The leaders of this movement advocate tyrannical World Government and mass depopulation. This is illustrated by a chilling document written by the UN magnate Maurice Strong, an agent of Edmund de Rothschild, that was taken from the conference Hunt attended (in the introductory email, I endorsed Mullins - an endorsement which I redact because he is such a problematic source, but I stand behind everything else in the email prefacing the document. he document itself gives insight into the accumulated degeneracy of the elite of the world at present - the ensuing emails discuss affidavits, etc., that corroborate the document - and there are people who question this because online knockoffs have the wrong number of Gephardt who Hunt states this was misattributed to - 814-631-9959. But this,a copy of the original (see p. 5), has the right number, 314-631-9959, and is consistent with the other items presented, a part of the continuing literature of this partially-open-conspiracy).
Excerpts are as follows:
"The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction.
Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970's recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected.
"The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. ...
Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist "cultures" and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose.
The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. ...
We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 ... We stand with Lord Milner's credo. We too are "British Race Patriots" and our patriotism is "the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race". Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system?
...The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. ...
outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council.
The Security Council of the U.N. Will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. ...
All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution.": https://www.scribd.com/doc/74349656/The-Cobden-Clubs-Papers
A follow up Cobden Clubs document contains the following words:
"The Courage to Face a New Paradigm
Anyone attending this conference knows that the Earth is overcrowded. People are crowding out other forms of life that have the right to exist.
The time has come to make effective proposals for population reduction and to show the public that ongoing efforts to reduce population have been effective and socially hygienic.
The way to overcome to outmoded and harmful moralisms is to show that certain behaviors and life styles effectively promote the cause of population reduction. While some may oppose homosexuality of cross-generational sex, they can be brought to understand how beneficial these might be in reducing the population,
Homosexuality, for example, has the clear advantage of being non-procreative. Cross-generational sex, especially if begun early, can open up the child to possibilities of sexuality that will not necessarily be procreative.
While some may oppose drug trafficking, its positive features must be emphasized. Not only does it eliminate a certain number of humans, but it creates a healthy anxiety in the population which reduces their desire to generate posterity.
Once drugs are legalized, the government might consider adding birth control chemicals to the drugs, which, given widespread use of drugs, would seriously reduce the birthrate.
An alternate measure, one which has been proposed before and written about in children's books, would be to add birth control chemicals to the water supply or to commonly ingested foods such as beer, soda, or milk.
But what about the present population surplus? Former Governor Lamm of Colorado was wise and corageous when he said that the elderly should move aside to allow the younger to prosper.
In the United States, the best way to do this equitably would be to balance the budget. This measure, which is popular among taxpayers and lawmakers alike, would cut several hundred billions out of the Federal and State budgets.
Programs for the overaged and the physically unfit would be vastly reduced. The social expense of people who think they should live forever would be eliminated. Overaged persons would tend to understandthat their time has come and wlecome the opportunity to help solve the population crisis.
Our most acute concern is the Third World. There the birth rate is still out of control, despite the hygienic measures of food control, medicine restriction, and general economic contractions that have already been applied by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, both U.N. agencies.
We offer a proposal that willgreatly alter the demographics in these, the most populous nations of the world. Our proposal would not only reduce the number of offspring (who might otherwise survive and procreate even more offspring), but enhance the balance of payments of these nations, in line with IMF conditionalities.
The world-shortage of high-protein meat could be solved by canning and exporting, under U.N. humanitarian auspices, the heathy children of these nations. Strict controls would apply to make sure that starved and diseased meat does not enter the global market.
A flourishing export market from the Third World would help these nations pay their international debts and liquidity to the international banking system.
The need to create a taste for this particular kind of meat could be created by innovative advertising and promotional campaigns. United Nations spokesment and environmental agencies could stress the low fat content of the meat. Cookbooks, talk show hosts, and media personalities can promote the product or give personal endorsements.
Countries that turn down this export program could be subject to a U.N humanitarian blockade, as Iraq and Haiti are today. These countries might qualify as test cases for the new program if there is enough meat left on the children."
https://www.academia.edu/31002372/Population_Control_1994
On Cobden, see the following article - "Richard Cobden: the goal of Free Trade is the abolition of the Nation-State": http://mailstar.net/cobden.html
World Government has long been an infatuation among certain plutocrats in the United States and Europe. One of the first motivators used by adherents of the World government ambition was using public fears of nuclear War, that we must have "one world or none". Perhaps the most vocal proponent of this idea was Bernard Baruch, one of Roosevelt's key "advisers", who after WWII promoted the idea of building up the UN into a World Government with atomic powers: http://mailstar.net/baruch-plan.html
Baruch, who stated to a Senate Committee after World War I: "I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.": http://tinyurl.com/848qjdm
...stated the following after WWII, in an address to the UN Atomic Energy Commission as recorded in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
“Behind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out salvation … Let us not deceive ourselves: we must elect world peace or world destruction. … We must provide the mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and preclude its use in war. To that end, we must provide immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by the nations. Penalization is essential if peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between wars. And, too, the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and the United States – a formula certain to benefit the world’s future. In this crisis, we represent not only our governments, but, in a larger way, we represent the peoples of the world. . . The peoples of these democracies gathered here are not afraid of an internationalism that protects; they are unwilling to be fobbed off by mouthings about narrow sovereignty, which is today’s phrase for yesterday’s isolation. … Peace is never long preserved by weight of metal or by an armament race. Peace can be made tranquil and secure only by understanding and agreement fortified by sanctions. We must embrace international cooperation or international disintegration.”: http://tinyurl.com/7ejoc9f
Stalin was a bit of a Buonapartist, and foiled this, so the cold war was on. Stalin would later face some problems where he was located, and be murdered: http://mailstar.net/death-of-stalin.html
Baruch interestingly stated before a Senate Committee in 1948: “Although the shooting war is over, we are in the midst of a cold war which is getting warmer.” He was one of the first people I am aware of to use this term: http://tinyurl.com/75jvhmv
The disgusting thing here is that, as Maj. George Racey Jordan showed in his diaries, Roosevelt's other key adviser, Harry Hopkins, supplied the Soviets with atomic weapons during WWII (https://archive.org/details/FromMajorJordansDiaries-TheTruthAboutTheUsAndUssr, see comment). And throughout the war, the West still supplied essential technology to the Soviet Union, as revealed in the research of Dr. Antony Sutton, popularized in his book “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”: http://tinyurl.com/7guyj3w
During this time, World Government proponents advocated merging the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. under the auspices of the UN. William Jasper, who belongs to an organization I do not endorse (the John Birch Society, on which see: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/home), nevertheless came out with a book delving into this that is well documented, and independently verifiable: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/un_exposed/un_exposed.htm
Soon, however, proponents of this ambition realized that they could achieve their objectives with a less direct approach. that gradual Regionalization and submerging nations in complex webs of international relations would be preferable to just announcing a World Government controlled by the UN. Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in an April, 1974 Foreign Affairs article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, provided insight into how the World State was to be built:
“In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago-’world federalism,’ `charter `review,’ and `world peace through world law.’… If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?… In short, the `house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great `booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”: http://ia700403.us.archive.org/28/items/TheHardRoadToWorldOrder/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf
Even though these people were implementing their agenda via a slightly less direct route, the phenomenon of East-West convergence was still paramount. In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev stated: “We are moving toward a New World, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (Cf. Conquest, Robert and Paul Hollander. "Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation" Palgrave Macmillan; First Edition (October 28, 2008). p. 118): http://tinyurl.com/7vmwqud
And indeed he was right. Communism did not “fall”, but dialectically synthesized into the Communist-Capitalist synthesis known as Globalism. This, is of course being implemented via regionalism. The EU would follow this pattern of Capitalist-Communist convergence (and other Continental Unions are to follow). The Soviet defector Vladimir Bukovsky, who was allowed to examine secret Soviet archives, proved this in his monograph "EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration", which shows that the modern EU was implemented as a result of a conspiracy between the Politburo and the elite of the Trilateral Commission - David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87502960/EUSSR-The-Soviet-roots-of-European-Integration
A document leaked by wikileaks noted similar regionalization taking place in North America, in contrast to the claims of deniers: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/01/05OTTAWA268.html
The Club of Rome, was founded in Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio in 1968. An overview of that organization, with a list of some members that might surprise some of us, can be found here: http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
The Club of Rome then established itself with the launch of it’s book “Limits to Growth in 1972″, which aroused the fear of immanent danger from overpopulation.
After this, they released a Report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System” which was part of their “Strategy for Survival Project”. It put forth the goal of submerging nation states into 10 Global Regions for the administrative convenience of a World Government: http://tinyurl.com/b8d8rrl, http://tinyurl.com/amh4hcy, http://tinyurl.com/atllseo
Plans for the evolution of Globalism were put forth in the Club of Rome texts “Mankind at the Turning Point” and “RIO: Reshaping the International Order”. Relevant excerpts from these texts are available here: https://www.scribd.com/document/74348236/Set-of-Main-Articles-From-Knowledge-Driven-Revolution
A follow up text, “Goals for Mankind” was released in 1977. An overview of it is provided here: http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=GoalsforMankindareporttotheclubofromebyErvinLaszlo
“Global 2000″, a U.S. policy document along these lines, was written in 1979. It was very much like the text “Limits to Growth”, creating extreme fears about the “threat” of “overpopulation”. Pages 702-703 called for an “intensively managed world” and fertility reduction in order to offset these perceived threats: http://tinyurl.com/7o4jwrt
Many of these people have used these arguments as an excuse to increase Governmental power. One such example is Arnold Toynbee, director of studies for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, who, addressing these issues, said in that “In all developed countries a new way of life—a severely regimented way—will have to be imposed by a ruthless authoritarian government” (cited by Arthur Miller in an article in the Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 41, Issue 4, p. 1262): http://tinyurl.com/6n726qr
Toynbee, prior to that, as recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, said, "In the world as it is to-day, this institution can hardly be a Universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with out lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national state of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be - perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws when it is brought to bay. Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease, in fact if not in name, to be a local affair." ("The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809): http://www.jstor.org/stable/3015848?seq=7
Many of these people have put forth plans for massive population reduction (as shown in the Cobden Clubs papers above). Numbers vary, but there are admissions from influential policy planning think tanks that there are plans to reduce Earth’s population by up to 80%. This will be discussed very shortly.
In the text “The First Global Revolution”, leading “intellectual elites” in the Club of Rome admitted that they manufactured the threat of anthropogenic global warming as a “unifying external threat” that would place the blame on humanity (and this would obviously make people sympathetic to the Globalist rhetoric of “global problems requiring global solutions”), and that appointed bureaucracies must replace any vestige of democracy as a governing force. The relevant chapter is called “The Vacuum”. Excerpts are as follows:
"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together; in the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist‚ or have yet to be found.
The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to designate as scapegoat religious or ethnic minorities whose differences are disturbing.
[...]The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead [so obviously the "intellectual elite" should take over decision making - as they have been doing for a very long time]. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.
[...]The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely, mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (New York : Pantheon Books, c1991), pp. 107-108, 109-110, 115)
Gorbachev was part of a Globalist trend that combined Communism and International capitalism into a new synthesis: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
After the “collapse” and convergence of the Soviet system in 1991, he founded Green Cross International, and co-wrote the Earth Charter with Maurice Strong (a collectivist document that, along with Agenda 21, came out of the initial events George Hunt exposes). He stated that the Earth Charter should replace the Ten Commandments (http://tinyurl.com/2bdejz3)
He also stated: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” (http://tinyurl.com/72qtoqq)
Thus we come back to the "Cobden Clubs" papers.
This kind of thing is discussed in power elite circles all the time. For instance, consider some of the benevolent members of the “intellectual elite” at CSIS who are so concerned about dissent in the war and terror and resolve to employ “perception management”. They are also very concerned about the next wave of terrorism, which they say will be mass depopulation. The audio of the presentation is here: http://media.csis.org/hs/100310_terrorist_threat.mp3
Arnaud de Borchgrave complains about Hamid Gul, and then we here the following statement
@45:55 “I feel we have to become a little more comfortable with perception management – psychological operations – these are bad words in Washington right now, but ultimately a lot of the, a lot of the activities, we’re going to have the overt function”
Then we have Marc Sageman (http://csis.org/expert/marc-sageman) saying the following:
@1:01:00 “Unfortunately, I think the Next wave is going to make those Jihadi’s look a little quaint. My fear, and you know, fundamentalist environmentalists – Earth First, Gaia, you know, we’re ruining the world, we’re ruining the Earth, because of pollution, because of global warming, and in order to save the planet and preserve the human race, YOU MAY HAVE TO KILL 80% OF THE PEOPLE, because you know, because what’s really ruining it is overpopulation, and the only thing that can kill that efficiently are BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. THIS IS A COVERT BIOLOGICAL WEAPON, and you already see this on some extremist website, and this is really scary. I mean, you’re talking about five billion people dying here.” (emphasis added)
So it appears that we can expect bioweapons in the near future.
I find it amusing that he pretends that groups like Earth First have the ability to carry that out. What Sageman forgets is that groups like the Club of Rome and people like Paul Ehrlich were the ones responsible for all of this population hysteria to begin with, and many of these organizations are funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Incidentally, John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich of the book Ecoscience, is currently the Science “Czar” of the United States. In his book, he made some very interesting proposals. As follows:
p. 837: “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
p. 786: “One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
p. 787: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
p. 786: “Involuntary fertility control…A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.…The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
p. 838: “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”
p. 942: “Toward a Planetary Regime…Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
p. 917: “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
You can see facsimile excerpts of the book here: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
CNSN News has a video in this article where you can see Senate Commerce Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D.-W.V.) at a Congressional Hearing say, “Dr. Holdren, I don’t want to embarrass you, but I sometimes refer to you as walking on water.”: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rockefeller-refers-obama-s-science-czar-walking-water
Holdren is a disciple of the devotee of negative Eugenics, Harrison Brown (who is approvingly cited in the aforementioned text, "The First Global Revolution", and who himself praised the eugenicist Charles Galton Darwin - for chilling excerpts from Galton Darwin's text, see here: http://www.earthemperor.com/2009/01/08/the-next-million-years-by-charles-galton-darwin/). In fact, Holdren praised Brown as recently as 2007. On p. 104 of Brown’s 1954 book The Challenge of Man’s Future, he said, “Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs.”
On p. 260 of his tract, Brown said, “In the first place, it is amply clear that population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible. Populations cannot be stabilized by agreement any more than levels of armament can be stabilized by agreement. And, as in the latter case, a world authority is needed which has the power of making, interpreting, and enforcing, within specified spheres, laws which are directly applicable to the individual. Indeed, population stabilization is one of the two major problems with which a world government must necessarily concern itself.
Given a world authority with jurisdiction over population problems, the task of assessing maximum permissible population levels on a regional basis need not be prohibitively difficult.”
More on Harrison Brown is here: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/
Others have expressed sympathy with these ideas as well. Prince Phillip said, “If I were to be reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus, to lower human population levels” (cited in Jay H. Lehr and Janet K. Lehr. Standard handbook of environmental science, health, and technology. p. 20.57): http://tinyurl.com/6kpkrm2
The following ... argument likewise contends that a conspiratorial account attacking global warming is untenable, and notes the reasons why one might believe this and challenges it - though it ignores that many other corporate giants have manipulated this as will be discussed: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42827.htm
I appreciate the following as well:
"Carbon Trading Giants and Big Energy Are Both Trying to Steer the Global Warming Debate Away from REAL Solutions
Posted on July 28, 2009 by WashingtonsBlog
Goldman Sachs and the other financial giants who brought us the economic meltdown and manipulation of the economy argue that carbon trading will solve all of our problems. If we just let them make out like bandits off of carbon trading, then everything will be fine. Not only is this an awfully convenient for the banksters who conned us into an economic crash, but many environmentalists don’t even buy that carbon trading is the best way to reduce carbon emissions.
On the other hand, big oil and king coal argue that keeping the status quo is best for everyone. You know, let the giant energy conglomerates produce all our energy and make out like robber barons. These energy giants buy up and then bury promising alternative energy technologies so that cheap alternatives don’t challenge their monopoly on energy-production.
But neither the carbon trading or the energy giants want us to look at real alternatives or solutions . . . like microgeneration.
Microgeneration of energy could reduce our bills, decentralize power away from the giant corporations, and help protect our freedom (and see this).
Saving money and protecting freedom are bipartisan goals that everyone can rally around, whether you believe in global warming or not.
Microgeneration would also significantly reduce carbon output by substituting wind, solar and other types of clean energy for conventional energy sources, and so it would have a significant impact on reducing CO2 while empowering people at the local level, and reducing our energy bills.
So if global warming is, in fact, a threat, a major switch to microgeneration would be a lot more effective than carbon trading.
If global warming is not a threat, microgeneration can still help to break the monopoly of big energy, and return power back to the people (and a little money back into our pockets).
We all know that the powers-that-be try to divide-and-conquer us so as to make sure we don’t organize for change, to keep us off-balance, and to ram through their agendas. They do this on every important issue.
They are going to continue to try to divide us on climate issues as well. We have to empower ourselves, and microgeneration is a good start.": http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/carbon-trading-giants-and-big-energy-are-both-trying-to-steer-the-global-warming-debate-away-from-real-solutions.html
Also, "The climate will change with or without us. To ensure the survival of what we value in terms of human society, history, and infrastructure, as well as ecosystems and individual species we desire to preserve, we must come up with something better than “carbon neutrality” implemented by giving bankers yet another derivative to trade, and energy companies a legal framework to maintain monopolies over powering human civilization.
Part of the solution is not only leveraging technology to protect our towns, cities, and countrysides from adverse weather, flooding, and changes in temperature through innovative infrastructure projects, but undermining, decentralizing, and eventually eliminating permanently these corporate monopolies that are demonstrably destroying the environment.
Strange that 350.org wasn’t marching against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and Monsanto’s pursuit of overwriting the planet genetically. Could a planet face a more dire threat than being overwritten genetically, its very essence mutilated by profiteering corporations? Strange that 350.org‘s “Friends & Allies” don’t demand an end to profiteering wars around the planet that see tons of depleted uranium, with a half-life of billions of years, being dumped in both human and natural habitats the world over. Strange that 350.org, and “Friends & Allies” like WWF have in fact partnered with Fortune 500 corporations that perpetuate global monopolies, centralized manufacturing and distribution (and profits) that encourage wasteful supply chains, unhealthy socioeconomic trends, incur large amounts of garbage, and require the very petroleum and CO2 producing processes they allegedly were in Washington to oppose.
Indeed, 350.org and partners like the WWF do not represent corporations joining environmentalists, but rather represent environmentalists being co-opted and manipulated by the very special interests committing real harm to this planet.
[...]
Waving around placards as part of a big-business rally couched behind environmentalism, demanding action from a government big-business already fully owns, simply legitimizes and manufacturers public consent for more of the same. More schemes, more waste, more fraud, more abuse, while the environment continues to unravel and a host of problems both directly and indirectly related continue to grow.
Real solutions generally don’t involve corporations or governments, in fact, as a necessity must exclude them. The marriage between corporate interests and government regulations should be something all of us can agree on, regardless of where we sit on the political or environmental spectrum.
Real solutions involve a real education in science, technology, design, and manufacturing. This empowers people in all levels of society to accurately assess problems and apply local solutions. This, coupled with modern manufacturing technology enables more to be done on a local level, short-circuiting the petroleum intensive logistical chains WWF sponsors like Walmart couldn’t live without.
Organic farming on a local level coupled with local farmers’ markets eliminates entirely the need for Monsanto poison, fertilizers, and genetically modified franken-crops, along with the replacement of the petroleum intensive logistical networks that distribute big-agri’s products. 3D printing, computer-controlled manufacturing, and local hackerspaces that encourage local entrepreneurship accelerate technological development and solutions that allow us to live the lives we wish to lead while doing so more efficiently in terms of energy, waste, and environmental impact.
In fact, when you think about it, almost all of these real solutions involve real community and local action, not placard-waving trips to Washington. These are not solutions that involve policies, taxes, and regulations, but rather technology, education, constructive, pragmatic, technical solutions that not only would make our environment more livable, but make our local economies and communities more viable and self-sufficient. The catch is, and the reason why this isn’t being done, you will notice that none of these activities require WWF sponsors like Walmart, Nike, IBM, Toyota, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, HSBC, Citi, IKEA, Nokia, etc.
We all desire cleaner air, healthier food, safer water, and greener parks. Waiting for a corporate-financier establishment to give it to us, when they themselves are the ones that have denied us of these essentials is the height of both naivety and futility.
Does it make sense then, to see why real problems and their solutions have become the target of hijackers like the corporate conglomeration that is 350.org and the WWF? Does it make sense to see them offering “alternative” centralized, corporate dependent solutions that replace local activism and tangible, technological solutions?
Why travel to Washington D.C. and demand non-solutions to real problems when you can organize locally and begin making this planet livable in very real, tangible, pragmatic, and measurable ways?":
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-change-corporate-lobby-threatens-the-environment/5323438
Issues like deforestation, GMOs, etc., and many of the issues described above, are of definite concern to me.
Yet there is a tremendous power grab based on environmentalism from extremely wealthy bankers that people need to be aware of. George Hunt's presentation, given above, shows is that many of the Global initiatives taken in the name of “sustainability” constitute a new false liberation ideology. This presentation clearly shows the World power of an “Anglo-American” (read – Rothschild dominated) financial coterie. Here, people like you and I are called “the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the Earth”. And a banking system set up by and for the Rothschilds is shown to be the centerpiece of the new mode of organization that “sustainability” measures will create. The attendees (like Maurice Strong) have no qualms about acknowledging the dominance of that family in World Affairs. Strong states that there is “no better person” to spearhead this project than Edmond de Rothschild, and that he “epitomizes in his own life that positive synthesis between environment and conservation on the one hand and economics on the other”. In other words, Rothschild is the leader of both international finance and this pseudo-environmentalist movement.
Of course, the Rothschilds are making massive amounts of money from this. They are the leaders in the carbon trading market, according to a recent press release: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/newsreleases/rothschild-australia-and-e3-international-to-take-the-lead-in-the-global-carbon-trading-market-154464275.html
But as this presentation shows, their intentions are not only to make massive amounts of money, but also to ensnare the populace within a new web of social control. We can see the outlines of this operating today. Of relevance is the document called "Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential" (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008: https://web.archive.org/web/20101104212113/http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf) - written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, London (see "about the author" section of that document).
In the document, he defined "greenhouse emissions" as the new form of "social market" and stated:
"That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match....
That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely `saving the planet' - perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.
Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.
The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue....
Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative."
He noted that "The political costs of such loss of sovereignty are lengthy. Loss of competitiveness (massively overstated in the activities in which energy is used - especially since trade will be more difficult, if, at the margin, transport is made more costly), loss of power and loss of direct control over economic levers are potentially the most significant and give the most cause for concern. But these actions are necessary if we are to answer the accusation that "it doesn't matter what we do when China is expanding its energy usage at its current rate" - we have to bring China and India in and they are not going to enter a scheme where they do not have a "say". When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this [the above] could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion."
He furthermore stated that "The EU member states have recognised their need to subordinate sovereignty to the EU; in time, if this is to work, the EU itself will need to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading."
He stated "Above all, this plan requires "sponsors" - a country prepared to host it and a senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order."
He stated that regulating this should be a "World Environment Authority" operating from a "world city with world skills and world facilities." He then notes, in a section entitled "A natural role for London", "London is a world financial centre (possibly "the" world financial centre)." and that "London would make a compelling case to house the World Environmental Agency."
The leaders of this movement advocate tyrannical World Government and mass depopulation. This is illustrated by a chilling document written by the UN magnate Maurice Strong, an agent of Edmund de Rothschild, that was taken from the conference Hunt attended (in the introductory email, I endorsed Mullins - an endorsement which I redact because he is such a problematic source, but I stand behind everything else in the email prefacing the document. he document itself gives insight into the accumulated degeneracy of the elite of the world at present - the ensuing emails discuss affidavits, etc., that corroborate the document - and there are people who question this because online knockoffs have the wrong number of Gephardt who Hunt states this was misattributed to - 814-631-9959. But this,a copy of the original (see p. 5), has the right number, 314-631-9959, and is consistent with the other items presented, a part of the continuing literature of this partially-open-conspiracy).
Excerpts are as follows:
"The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction.
Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970's recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected.
"The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. ...
Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist "cultures" and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose.
The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. ...
We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 ... We stand with Lord Milner's credo. We too are "British Race Patriots" and our patriotism is "the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race". Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system?
...The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. ...
outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council.
The Security Council of the U.N. Will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. ...
All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution.": https://www.scribd.com/doc/74349656/The-Cobden-Clubs-Papers
A follow up Cobden Clubs document contains the following words:
"The Courage to Face a New Paradigm
Anyone attending this conference knows that the Earth is overcrowded. People are crowding out other forms of life that have the right to exist.
The time has come to make effective proposals for population reduction and to show the public that ongoing efforts to reduce population have been effective and socially hygienic.
The way to overcome to outmoded and harmful moralisms is to show that certain behaviors and life styles effectively promote the cause of population reduction. While some may oppose homosexuality of cross-generational sex, they can be brought to understand how beneficial these might be in reducing the population,
Homosexuality, for example, has the clear advantage of being non-procreative. Cross-generational sex, especially if begun early, can open up the child to possibilities of sexuality that will not necessarily be procreative.
While some may oppose drug trafficking, its positive features must be emphasized. Not only does it eliminate a certain number of humans, but it creates a healthy anxiety in the population which reduces their desire to generate posterity.
Once drugs are legalized, the government might consider adding birth control chemicals to the drugs, which, given widespread use of drugs, would seriously reduce the birthrate.
An alternate measure, one which has been proposed before and written about in children's books, would be to add birth control chemicals to the water supply or to commonly ingested foods such as beer, soda, or milk.
But what about the present population surplus? Former Governor Lamm of Colorado was wise and corageous when he said that the elderly should move aside to allow the younger to prosper.
In the United States, the best way to do this equitably would be to balance the budget. This measure, which is popular among taxpayers and lawmakers alike, would cut several hundred billions out of the Federal and State budgets.
Programs for the overaged and the physically unfit would be vastly reduced. The social expense of people who think they should live forever would be eliminated. Overaged persons would tend to understandthat their time has come and wlecome the opportunity to help solve the population crisis.
Our most acute concern is the Third World. There the birth rate is still out of control, despite the hygienic measures of food control, medicine restriction, and general economic contractions that have already been applied by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, both U.N. agencies.
We offer a proposal that willgreatly alter the demographics in these, the most populous nations of the world. Our proposal would not only reduce the number of offspring (who might otherwise survive and procreate even more offspring), but enhance the balance of payments of these nations, in line with IMF conditionalities.
The world-shortage of high-protein meat could be solved by canning and exporting, under U.N. humanitarian auspices, the heathy children of these nations. Strict controls would apply to make sure that starved and diseased meat does not enter the global market.
A flourishing export market from the Third World would help these nations pay their international debts and liquidity to the international banking system.
The need to create a taste for this particular kind of meat could be created by innovative advertising and promotional campaigns. United Nations spokesment and environmental agencies could stress the low fat content of the meat. Cookbooks, talk show hosts, and media personalities can promote the product or give personal endorsements.
Countries that turn down this export program could be subject to a U.N humanitarian blockade, as Iraq and Haiti are today. These countries might qualify as test cases for the new program if there is enough meat left on the children."
https://www.academia.edu/31002372/Population_Control_1994
On Cobden, see the following article - "Richard Cobden: the goal of Free Trade is the abolition of the Nation-State": http://mailstar.net/cobden.html
World Government has long been an infatuation among certain plutocrats in the United States and Europe. One of the first motivators used by adherents of the World government ambition was using public fears of nuclear War, that we must have "one world or none". Perhaps the most vocal proponent of this idea was Bernard Baruch, one of Roosevelt's key "advisers", who after WWII promoted the idea of building up the UN into a World Government with atomic powers: http://mailstar.net/baruch-plan.html
Baruch, who stated to a Senate Committee after World War I: "I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.": http://tinyurl.com/848qjdm
...stated the following after WWII, in an address to the UN Atomic Energy Commission as recorded in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
“Behind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out salvation … Let us not deceive ourselves: we must elect world peace or world destruction. … We must provide the mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and preclude its use in war. To that end, we must provide immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by the nations. Penalization is essential if peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between wars. And, too, the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and the United States – a formula certain to benefit the world’s future. In this crisis, we represent not only our governments, but, in a larger way, we represent the peoples of the world. . . The peoples of these democracies gathered here are not afraid of an internationalism that protects; they are unwilling to be fobbed off by mouthings about narrow sovereignty, which is today’s phrase for yesterday’s isolation. … Peace is never long preserved by weight of metal or by an armament race. Peace can be made tranquil and secure only by understanding and agreement fortified by sanctions. We must embrace international cooperation or international disintegration.”: http://tinyurl.com/7ejoc9f
Stalin was a bit of a Buonapartist, and foiled this, so the cold war was on. Stalin would later face some problems where he was located, and be murdered: http://mailstar.net/death-of-stalin.html
Baruch interestingly stated before a Senate Committee in 1948: “Although the shooting war is over, we are in the midst of a cold war which is getting warmer.” He was one of the first people I am aware of to use this term: http://tinyurl.com/75jvhmv
The disgusting thing here is that, as Maj. George Racey Jordan showed in his diaries, Roosevelt's other key adviser, Harry Hopkins, supplied the Soviets with atomic weapons during WWII (https://archive.org/details/FromMajorJordansDiaries-TheTruthAboutTheUsAndUssr, see comment). And throughout the war, the West still supplied essential technology to the Soviet Union, as revealed in the research of Dr. Antony Sutton, popularized in his book “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”: http://tinyurl.com/7guyj3w
During this time, World Government proponents advocated merging the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. under the auspices of the UN. William Jasper, who belongs to an organization I do not endorse (the John Birch Society, on which see: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/home), nevertheless came out with a book delving into this that is well documented, and independently verifiable: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/un_exposed/un_exposed.htm
Soon, however, proponents of this ambition realized that they could achieve their objectives with a less direct approach. that gradual Regionalization and submerging nations in complex webs of international relations would be preferable to just announcing a World Government controlled by the UN. Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in an April, 1974 Foreign Affairs article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, provided insight into how the World State was to be built:
“In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago-’world federalism,’ `charter `review,’ and `world peace through world law.’… If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?… In short, the `house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great `booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”: http://ia700403.us.archive.org/28/items/TheHardRoadToWorldOrder/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf
Even though these people were implementing their agenda via a slightly less direct route, the phenomenon of East-West convergence was still paramount. In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev stated: “We are moving toward a New World, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (Cf. Conquest, Robert and Paul Hollander. "Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation" Palgrave Macmillan; First Edition (October 28, 2008). p. 118): http://tinyurl.com/7vmwqud
And indeed he was right. Communism did not “fall”, but dialectically synthesized into the Communist-Capitalist synthesis known as Globalism. This, is of course being implemented via regionalism. The EU would follow this pattern of Capitalist-Communist convergence (and other Continental Unions are to follow). The Soviet defector Vladimir Bukovsky, who was allowed to examine secret Soviet archives, proved this in his monograph "EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration", which shows that the modern EU was implemented as a result of a conspiracy between the Politburo and the elite of the Trilateral Commission - David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87502960/EUSSR-The-Soviet-roots-of-European-Integration
A document leaked by wikileaks noted similar regionalization taking place in North America, in contrast to the claims of deniers: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/01/05OTTAWA268.html
The Club of Rome, was founded in Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio in 1968. An overview of that organization, with a list of some members that might surprise some of us, can be found here: http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
The Club of Rome then established itself with the launch of it’s book “Limits to Growth in 1972″, which aroused the fear of immanent danger from overpopulation.
After this, they released a Report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System” which was part of their “Strategy for Survival Project”. It put forth the goal of submerging nation states into 10 Global Regions for the administrative convenience of a World Government: http://tinyurl.com/b8d8rrl, http://tinyurl.com/amh4hcy, http://tinyurl.com/atllseo
Plans for the evolution of Globalism were put forth in the Club of Rome texts “Mankind at the Turning Point” and “RIO: Reshaping the International Order”. Relevant excerpts from these texts are available here: https://www.scribd.com/document/74348236/Set-of-Main-Articles-From-Knowledge-Driven-Revolution
A follow up text, “Goals for Mankind” was released in 1977. An overview of it is provided here: http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=GoalsforMankindareporttotheclubofromebyErvinLaszlo
“Global 2000″, a U.S. policy document along these lines, was written in 1979. It was very much like the text “Limits to Growth”, creating extreme fears about the “threat” of “overpopulation”. Pages 702-703 called for an “intensively managed world” and fertility reduction in order to offset these perceived threats: http://tinyurl.com/7o4jwrt
Many of these people have used these arguments as an excuse to increase Governmental power. One such example is Arnold Toynbee, director of studies for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, who, addressing these issues, said in that “In all developed countries a new way of life—a severely regimented way—will have to be imposed by a ruthless authoritarian government” (cited by Arthur Miller in an article in the Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 41, Issue 4, p. 1262): http://tinyurl.com/6n726qr
Toynbee, prior to that, as recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, said, "In the world as it is to-day, this institution can hardly be a Universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with out lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national state of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be - perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws when it is brought to bay. Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease, in fact if not in name, to be a local affair." ("The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809): http://www.jstor.org/stable/3015848?seq=7
Many of these people have put forth plans for massive population reduction (as shown in the Cobden Clubs papers above). Numbers vary, but there are admissions from influential policy planning think tanks that there are plans to reduce Earth’s population by up to 80%. This will be discussed very shortly.
In the text “The First Global Revolution”, leading “intellectual elites” in the Club of Rome admitted that they manufactured the threat of anthropogenic global warming as a “unifying external threat” that would place the blame on humanity (and this would obviously make people sympathetic to the Globalist rhetoric of “global problems requiring global solutions”), and that appointed bureaucracies must replace any vestige of democracy as a governing force. The relevant chapter is called “The Vacuum”. Excerpts are as follows:
"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together; in the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist‚ or have yet to be found.
The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to designate as scapegoat religious or ethnic minorities whose differences are disturbing.
[...]The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead [so obviously the "intellectual elite" should take over decision making - as they have been doing for a very long time]. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.
[...]The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely, mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (New York : Pantheon Books, c1991), pp. 107-108, 109-110, 115)
Gorbachev was part of a Globalist trend that combined Communism and International capitalism into a new synthesis: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
After the “collapse” and convergence of the Soviet system in 1991, he founded Green Cross International, and co-wrote the Earth Charter with Maurice Strong (a collectivist document that, along with Agenda 21, came out of the initial events George Hunt exposes). He stated that the Earth Charter should replace the Ten Commandments (http://tinyurl.com/2bdejz3)
He also stated: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” (http://tinyurl.com/72qtoqq)
Thus we come back to the "Cobden Clubs" papers.
This kind of thing is discussed in power elite circles all the time. For instance, consider some of the benevolent members of the “intellectual elite” at CSIS who are so concerned about dissent in the war and terror and resolve to employ “perception management”. They are also very concerned about the next wave of terrorism, which they say will be mass depopulation. The audio of the presentation is here: http://media.csis.org/hs/100310_terrorist_threat.mp3
Arnaud de Borchgrave complains about Hamid Gul, and then we here the following statement
@45:55 “I feel we have to become a little more comfortable with perception management – psychological operations – these are bad words in Washington right now, but ultimately a lot of the, a lot of the activities, we’re going to have the overt function”
Then we have Marc Sageman (http://csis.org/expert/marc-sageman) saying the following:
@1:01:00 “Unfortunately, I think the Next wave is going to make those Jihadi’s look a little quaint. My fear, and you know, fundamentalist environmentalists – Earth First, Gaia, you know, we’re ruining the world, we’re ruining the Earth, because of pollution, because of global warming, and in order to save the planet and preserve the human race, YOU MAY HAVE TO KILL 80% OF THE PEOPLE, because you know, because what’s really ruining it is overpopulation, and the only thing that can kill that efficiently are BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. THIS IS A COVERT BIOLOGICAL WEAPON, and you already see this on some extremist website, and this is really scary. I mean, you’re talking about five billion people dying here.” (emphasis added)
So it appears that we can expect bioweapons in the near future.
I find it amusing that he pretends that groups like Earth First have the ability to carry that out. What Sageman forgets is that groups like the Club of Rome and people like Paul Ehrlich were the ones responsible for all of this population hysteria to begin with, and many of these organizations are funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Incidentally, John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich of the book Ecoscience, is currently the Science “Czar” of the United States. In his book, he made some very interesting proposals. As follows:
p. 837: “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
p. 786: “One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
p. 787: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
p. 786: “Involuntary fertility control…A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.…The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
p. 838: “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”
p. 942: “Toward a Planetary Regime…Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
p. 917: “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
You can see facsimile excerpts of the book here: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
CNSN News has a video in this article where you can see Senate Commerce Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D.-W.V.) at a Congressional Hearing say, “Dr. Holdren, I don’t want to embarrass you, but I sometimes refer to you as walking on water.”: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rockefeller-refers-obama-s-science-czar-walking-water
Holdren is a disciple of the devotee of negative Eugenics, Harrison Brown (who is approvingly cited in the aforementioned text, "The First Global Revolution", and who himself praised the eugenicist Charles Galton Darwin - for chilling excerpts from Galton Darwin's text, see here: http://www.earthemperor.com/2009/01/08/the-next-million-years-by-charles-galton-darwin/). In fact, Holdren praised Brown as recently as 2007. On p. 104 of Brown’s 1954 book The Challenge of Man’s Future, he said, “Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs.”
On p. 260 of his tract, Brown said, “In the first place, it is amply clear that population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible. Populations cannot be stabilized by agreement any more than levels of armament can be stabilized by agreement. And, as in the latter case, a world authority is needed which has the power of making, interpreting, and enforcing, within specified spheres, laws which are directly applicable to the individual. Indeed, population stabilization is one of the two major problems with which a world government must necessarily concern itself.
Given a world authority with jurisdiction over population problems, the task of assessing maximum permissible population levels on a regional basis need not be prohibitively difficult.”
More on Harrison Brown is here: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/
Others have expressed sympathy with these ideas as well. Prince Phillip said, “If I were to be reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus, to lower human population levels” (cited in Jay H. Lehr and Janet K. Lehr. Standard handbook of environmental science, health, and technology. p. 20.57): http://tinyurl.com/6kpkrm2
There is 1 review for this item. .
